Lump of coal early this year...

New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> ]

Regular Member

Date Joined Dec 2008
Total Posts : 235
   Posted 12/17/2010 9:29 AM (GMT -6)   
Well, I had gotten used to my <0.01 PSA results and largely put PCa out of my mind.  Focused on the holidays and my new girl friend who has been doing wonders for my ED -- generally pretty good results with Levitra if taken on an absolutely empty stomach.
Latest test came back last night as 0.02.  Not panicked yet (well, you know...).  This is the first test at a new lab due to a geographic move, so who knows.
Debating whether to get an immediate retest to confirm or hopefully deny, perhaps at a different lab, or just wait it out a couple of months...
Have followed many other similar sagas here, but its surprising how the details just slip away into a 'not me thank god' denial haze.  So time to go searching through the older message lists...
Hope you all get good news over the holidays.  Cheers!

Veteran Member

Date Joined Jan 2006
Total Posts : 654
   Posted 12/17/2010 9:51 AM (GMT -6)   
.01 .02 pretty much the same? I think. Could be the ole 0.014 , 0.016 syndome. I would take the new GF out on a date rather than have a date at the lab. Nobody likes any rise in numbers but I think I could easily rationalize this away for now if those were my numbers.
I know it is hard to get the "numbers" off our minds but I think you would get more meaningful information waiting till the next scheduled psa. I hope you can have a good christmas, hey, you have new GF!

Regular Member

Date Joined Dec 2008
Total Posts : 235
   Posted 12/17/2010 10:16 AM (GMT -6)   
From some research this morning:

"All quantitative assays have a finite lower limit of detection (LLD), distinct from 0, that more precisely constitutes the lower limit of the reference interval when this lower limit encompasses 0. For many PSA assays, the LLD is typically 0.05 ng/mL. Therefore, any PSA value less than 0.05 ng/mL would be reported appropriately as “less than 0.05 ng/mL” and not as 0.0 ng/mL."

I know there is an 'ultrasensitive' test, but this was certainly just the standard test. Given that it's a new lab, so the format of the report is different, etc. I'm going to not worry about this any more until the next test.

Just caused a mental blip.

Veteran Member

Date Joined Jan 2010
Total Posts : 1011
   Posted 12/17/2010 10:46 AM (GMT -6)   
Sounds like a plan. Enjoy the holidays. BB
Dx PCa Dec 2008 at 56, PSA 3.4
Biopsy: T1c, Geason 7 (3+4) - 8 cores, 4 positive, 30% of all 4 cores.
Robotic Surgery March 2009 Hartford Hospital, Dr Wagner
Pathology Report: T2c, Geason 8, organ confined, negitive margins, lymph nodes negitive - tumor volume 9%, nerves spared, no negitive side effects of surgery.
PSA's < .01, .01, .07, .28, .50. HT 5/10. IMRT 9/10.
PSA's post HT .01, < .01

Veteran Member

Date Joined Oct 2006
Total Posts : 1211
   Posted 12/17/2010 4:24 PM (GMT -6)   
Hi Rolerbe. The difference in your PSA reading is to small to worry about at this time. Just enjoy the holidays. If you do feel you want a re-test, I would suggest that you do not change labs. Different lab could be using different equipment or calibration and thus give different readings. That could just further complicate your PSA results.
Have a great holiday season. All the best to you.

Born 1936
PSA 7.9, Gleason Score 3+4=7, 2 of 8 positive
open RP Nov 06, T3a, Gleasons 3+4=7, Seminal vesicles and lymph nodes clear
Catheter out 15 Dec 06, Dry since 11 Feb 07
All PSA tests in 2007 (4) <.04
PSA tests in 2008: Mar.=.04; Jun.=.05; Sept.=.08; at SRT Start=0.1, Salvage RT completed (33 days-66Gy) 19 Dec 08
PSA: in Jan 09 =.05, all tests to date (Jul 10) <.04

Regular Member

Date Joined Oct 2009
Total Posts : 314
   Posted 12/17/2010 4:39 PM (GMT -6)   


OK, let me see if I have this right - you have:

1. one .02 PSA reading (and from a new lab at that)

2. a new girlfriend

A beautiful woman is much more dangerous than one .02 PSA reading.

Enjoy the holidays!


Regular Member

Date Joined Dec 2008
Total Posts : 235
   Posted 12/17/2010 5:08 PM (GMT -6)   
Thanks guys. As far as relative risks, Zen, I'm sure you're right -- I do like the perks better tho!

My MD (who I searched long and hard for, and is great), just told me to chill out, probablly just different cal standard between labs. Retest in 4 months and talk with him then.

Veteran Member

Date Joined Jan 2006
Total Posts : 654
   Posted 12/18/2010 8:18 AM (GMT -6)   
Rolerbe, that research excerpt you posted brings back a "rant" that keeps running in my mind. My last two psa were done by my ex-local uro and the result was <0.1. Ok, what was told to me was my psa was undecteable. I ask what is that? they tell me my psa is 0.0. It seems they didn't follow the protocol you sited. Having taken some math in my education, 0.0 would mean to me zero, nothing! When technically is was 0.0something and in my mind the results should never be reported as 0.0. Ok to say undectable or less than 0.1 but not 0.0! This and a couple of other trust issues have made that uro my ex.
06-08 1st biopsy neg psa 4
10-09 psa 5.5 2nd biopsy 1/12 pos. 10%, G(4+3) age 65
12-15-09 RRP Tulane NOLA Dr Lee
Path, 1%, clr marg, no EPE, no SVI, nodes cl, G(4+3)
100% incontinent after 3 mo. PT
ED, pre-op severe, post op total
10/10 Dr Boone, Baylor recomended AUS
AUS and IPP scheduled 1/11/11
post op psa's 0.04,<0.1,<0.1,0.01@12 mo.
New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
Forum Information
Currently it is Saturday, September 22, 2018 1:56 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 3,005,630 posts in 329,243 threads.
View Active Threads

Who's Online
This forum has 161787 registered members. Please welcome our newest member, melzissa.
236 Guest(s), 2 Registered Member(s) are currently online.  Details
bluelyme, JoHnGaMeR90